header-logo header-logo

03 February 2017 / Michael Zander KC
Issue: 7732 / Categories: Features , Public , Brexit , EU
printer mail-detail

Art 50: the judgment (Pt 1)

nlj_7732_zander

Michael Zander QC picks out crucial passages from the Supreme Court judgment on the triggering of Art 50

  • R (Miller and another) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union [2017] UKSC 5

  • The majority: Lord Neuberger, Lady Hale, Lords Mance, Kerr, Clarke, Wilson, Sumption, Hodge.

Lord Neuberger, President, announcing the decision, said that all the justices had taken part in the preparation of the judgment.

The main issue

“The main issue on this appeal concerns the ability of ministers to bring about changes in domestic law by exercising their powers at the international level.” (at [5])

The royal prerogative cannot be used to change the law

“It is a fundamental principle of the UK constitution that, unless primary legislation permits it, the Royal prerogative does not enable ministers to change statute law or common law. As Lord Hoffmann observed in R (Bancoult) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (No 2) [2009] AC 453, para 44, ‘since the 17th century the prerogative

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Dual-qualified partner joins as head of commercial property department

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Firm announces appointment of next chair

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Director joins corporate team from the US

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll